cleer by Acts 10 2â—Phil 1. 1. Tit. 1 5 7. that in Ignatius his daies Bishops Presbiters were all one both in Title office and jurisdiction that there were many Bishops in every chiefe City and Church not any sole â—ishop paramount the Presbiters over one or many Churches and that Diocâ—san Bishops were instituted long after the Apostles and therefore after Ignatius his dayes who lived in the Apostles age as all Authors forecited accord and the whole Clergie of England in their Institution of a Christian man dedicated to King Henry the 8 resolue in direct termes These Epistles therefore of Ignatius which speâ—k of one Bishop in a â—hurch distinct â—rom and superior to Presbyters must needs be â—orged Thiâ—dly Ignatius in these Epistles makes Bishops successors to Christ and to sâ—and in his stead and Presbyters to succeed the Apostles whereas all others maâ—es them successors to the Apostles only not to Christ who z leâ—t no successor or Vicar generall behind him bâ—t a remains himselfe for ever the High-Priest chiefe Shepheard and Bishop of our Sâ—ules and hath promised b to â—e with us alwaies even to the end of the world This therefore maâ—es his Authority but suspiciâ—us and coâ—teâ—ptible Fourthly Ignatius hath not oâ—e word in him that Bishops are superior to â—â—eâ—biters â—y any divine lâ—w or iâ—stitutionâ— the thing in question therefore his Authority if geâ—uine proves nothing for the oposites Fifthly Ignaâ—ius equals Bishops and Presbyters both in jurisdiction rule and Authority for â—pist â— ad â—ralâ—â—anus he writes thus â—ut be ye subject to the Presbyters as to the Apostles of Christ for the Presbyters are a certaine conjoyned Sessions and â—ssembly of Apostles Epist. 6. ad Magnesianes â—rebyteri president â—oco Sinatus Apostolis The â—resbyters rule in the place of the Senate of the Apostles Epist. 10. ad Symenses Do ye al â—ollow the Colledge of the presbiters as Apostles Now if Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the government oâ— the Church al are to be Subject to them to follow them as Christs Apostles then certainely â—hey are equall at least to Bishops who at the highest are by Gods institution only to be obeyed and followed but as Christs Apostles not to be preâ—erred before them if equalized with them as the proudest Prelate of them must acknowledge and and the c Fathers witnesse Sixthly d Ignatius confesseth that the Churches in those dayes were not ruled by the Bishops as they are now but by the Colledge Senate and Synod of the Elders communi Praesbytâ—oum concilio as Hierome e and all other after him affirme the Presbiters therefore had then equall and joynt authority with the Bishops even in point of Iurisdiction governments and did râ—le and govern the Church in common with them therefore the Bishops were not then Lords Paramount as now they maâ—e themselves but equall and one with them yea their Colleagues companions as Ignatius and the g â—ourâ—h counsel oâ— Caâ—â—hâ—ge stile theÌ„ Seventhly his words h that they shâ—uld â—e sâ—bject to the Bishop as to God and Christ if rightly understood maâ—e nothing for the Prelates Hieraâ—chieâ—â—or Saint Paul Ephes. 6 5.6 7. coâ—mands servants to be obedient unto them that are their Masters according to the flesh with â—eare and â—â—embling in singlenesâ—e of heart as unto Christ not with eye-service as â—en pleasers but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from his heart with good will doing service unto the Lord and not to men c. Is therefore every Master a Bishop equall unto Christ and superior in inrisdiction and degree to Presbyters No So Polycarpus in his Epistle to the â—hilippians chargeth them i to be subiect to their Elders as unto God and Christ using the same words of Elders as Ignatius doth of Bishops Are Preâ—byters therefore Paramount Bishops and succesâ—oâ—s to Christ himselfe I trow not Ignatius his meaning therefore is not that Bishops are as high above Presbyters and the people as God and Christ are above the Apostles as some k ambitious Prelates fansie but only that we must obey Bishops in all things that they command and prescribe us out of Gods word as farre â—orth as we would obey God or Christ himselfe for he that heareth them heareth Christ himselfe and hee that despiseth them despiseth God and Châ—ist himselfe Luke 10.16 1 Thes. 4â— 8. In this manner likewise are we to be subject to every Minister whatsoeverâ—Heb 13.17.7.1 Thes. 2.13 This therefore proves nothing for the Prelates superiority over other Bishops especially since this Ignaâ—â—us himselfe Epist. 5 chargeth the Trallians to reverence Deâ—cons inâ—eâ—â—or to â—resbyters as Christ himselfe whose Vicars they are As for those extravagail expressions of Ignatius l Episcopus typum Dei Patris â—mnium geâ—ut quid enim aliud est Episcopus quam is qui â—mni â—â—incipatu protestate Superior est quod homini licet pro viribus imitator Christi Dei factus and the m like on n which same ground both the Popes and Prelates Monarchie they are so ridiâ—ulous â—alse ambitious and hyperbolical as favor neither of Ignatius or any Christian but rather of a meere papall and Anti-christian spiritâ— discovering these Epistles to be none of his and those â—relaâ—ts who assâ—me these speeches to themselues to be o none of Christs Mat. 11.29 All which consideredâ— this forged Aâ—tiquity will stand theÌ„ in no stead at all to prove them superior or distinct from Presbyters by any diuine institution and other Antiquity making for them I find not extant That Presbyters and Bishops by Gods law and Ordination are both one and the same of equall authority and jurisdiction as all these authorities resolve I shall undeniable manifest by this one Argument Presqyters by the expresse resolution of the Scripture have the very name and not so onely but the very office of Bishops Act. 20.17 28. Pâ—â—l 1 1 1. Tim. 3 1â— to 5. Tit. 1 5. to 1â— the same mission and commission the same function charge Ordination and quallification Matth. 28.19.20 1 Tim. 3 1. to 7. c. 4.14 c. 5 17. 2 Tim. 4.1 2 1 Pet. 5 1 2 3. Tit. 1 5. to 12. neither doth the Scripture in any place make any differeÌ„ce distinction or superiority between them or attribute any power to the one that it doth not to the other â—s the premises evidence and Matth. 20 25.26 27 28. Mar. 10 42 43 44 Luk. 22.25.26 Therefore by Gods law and institution they are one and the same and of equall authority power and jurisdiction in all things As for that distinction in power precedency and jurisdiction whiâ—â— hath since been made between them it hath proceeded partly from Canons and constitutions made by Bishops themselves p partly by meer usurpation and encrochment but principally from the grant and largenesse of Christian Princes who as they erected Bishoprickes and Diocesse
tâ—e manner of Ordination without any Bishops assistance which power of Ordination and imposition of hands hath ever since been prâ—ctised by Ministers in all reformed Chuâ—ches which have abandoned Bishops such as ours are and maâ—e themselves as contrary to Gods word â—atrick Adamsoâ— Arâ—h-Bishop of St. Andrews in Scotland in his recantation publickly made in the Synod of Fiâ—â—e Aprill 8 1591 conâ—esâ—eth that this office of a Diocesan Bishop Omne â—uthoritate verbi dei destituituâ— solo politico hâ—minum câ—nâ—mento â—uâ—datur is destitute of of all authority from Gods word and is onely â—ounded in the politicke figment of men out of which the primacy of the â—ope or Antichrist â—ath sprung and is worthily to be condemned becâ—use the asâ—embly of the â—â—esbytery penes quâ—m est jâ—risdictio inspectioâ—â—m in visitationibus tum in ordinationibus which having the jurisdiction and inspection both in visitations and in Ordinations will performe all these things with greater authority piety and zeale then any Bishop whatsoever whose caâ—e is for tâ—e most part intent not upon â—od or his â—â—â—ction but tâ—e world which he especially serves A 〈◊〉 blâ—w to our prelates Hieâ—achie For iâ— Bishops be not Iure divino and have no â—oundation in the word of â—od theâ— the power of OrdinatioÌ„ beloÌ„gs not â—to them Iure divino as they aâ—e Bishops neither can do or â—ught they to conâ—eâ—â—e Orders as Bishops but â—rely as they are Ministers And if so as is most certaine Then this power of Ordination belongs not at all to Bishops as Bisâ—ops but only as Ministers and every Minister as he is a Minister â—ath as much right and authority to give oâ—ders as any Bishop whatsoever the true reason why even among us at this day Ministers ought to joyn with the Bishop in the imposition of hands neither can our Bishops ordaine any one a Minister unlesse 3 or 4 Ministers at least joyne with him in the Ordination and laying on of hands This being an apparent â—â—uth I shal hence from the Bishops owne principles prove Presbyters Superior and greater then Bishops in jurisdiction dignity and degâ—ee These say they to whom the power of Ordination belongs of Right are â—â—eater in jurisdiction dignity â—â—d degree then those who have not this power and the Ordainer higher in all these then the ordained But the power of Ordination belongs onely jure divino to â—resbyters as presbyters not to Bishops as to Bishops themselves not as Bishops but Presbyters and Bishops when they ordaine in a lawfull manner do it onely as Presbyters not as Bishops Therefore Presbyters are Superior to Bishops in jurisdiction Order and degree and Bishops themselves â—arre greater in all theseâ— as they aâ—e Presbyters an office of divine â—â—nction then as they are Lordly Prelates or Diocesan Bishops a meer humane institution Thus are our great Lord Bishops who vaunt of the weaknesse of puriâ—â—ne principles whereas their Episcopall are farre more feeble and absurâ— wounded to death with their own weapons and all their Domiâ—eering swelling authority overthrowne by that very principle and foundation on which they have presumed to erect it the ancient proverbe being here truly verified vis â—â—nsilij â—â—pâ—rs â—olâ— ruit sâ—â— I shall close â—p this with the words of acute Aâ—tâ—â—ius Sâ—dâ—â—l who after a large proof of Biâ—â—ops and presbyterâ— to be both â—ne and the same by divine institution winds up all in this mâ—nner We couclude therefore seeing that Superior Episcopall dignity is to be avouched onely humane institution Tantum essâ— hâ—mâ—ni iuris that it is only of humâ—ne right On the contrary since it is evident by the expressâ— testimonies of Scripture that in the Apostles times Bishops were the same with Presbyters jurâ— diuinâ— pâ—tâ—stâ—tâ—â— ordinandi noâ— minus presbytâ—riâ— quâ—m Episcâ—pis convenirâ— that by Godâ— law and divine right the power of Ordination belongs as much to preâ—biters as to Bishops I have now I hopâ— sufficiently maâ—ifested our Lordly prelates Arch-â—ishops Diocesâ—n Bishops distinct from presbyters to be none of Gods institution being therefore none of Gods Bishopâ— as they vainly pretend whose then must they be not the kingsâ— for thâ—n they are onely Iurâ— humanâ— which they have publikely â—â—sâ—lâ—imed iâ— Courtâ— therefore certainly eitheâ— the Popes or the â—evils or both as many of the recited writers stile theÌ„ for I know no other that can claime or own them wherfore being neither Gods nor the Kings but the Popeâ— or Devillsâ— or bothâ— what remaines but that now at last they should be spâ—red out of our Churchâ— as no members at all of Christs Church or bodyâ— but of the Devill Pope or Antichrist of Rome whose limbs and creatures in tâ—uth they are as Mauritius dâ— i Alâ—â—dâ— Henry k Stâ—lbridâ—â— and othersâ— expresly resolves and their actions past all dispute discover many of them to be yea as meere Individuum vaginus and meere unnaturall monsters they being neithâ—r Pastors nor members of any particular Church or congregation as all other Christians are besideâ— themselves I read in the l great Dutch Chronicle written by an Augustinâ— Frier that in the year of our Lord 1033 beyond Poland there was a strange Fisâ— taken of the quantity length and breadth and shape of a living man adorned with a Bishopâ— Miterâ— a pastorall Staff a Cassock a white Surplesse a Chessible Sandalsâ— Glovesâ— and all othes Robesâ— and ornaments requisite to the Dignity of â— Prelate like a Bishop solemnly attired and prepared to say divine Serviceâ— his Cassocke might be well lifted up before and behind from the feet to the knees but not higherâ— and he permitted himselfe to bee sufficiently â—andled and touched by manyâ— but especiâ—lly of the Bishops of that Countryâ— which Fish being presented to the King and demanded in the Language of that Countryâ— and of divers otherâ— nations who hee was and answering â—othing albeit he had opened hiâ— mouth giving reverence and honoâ—r to the Bishopâ— that were there in the Kings presence one Monster and dumbe unpreaching beastâ— saluting and respecting another the King being aâ—gry when hee had determined to commit him to prisoÌ„â— or shut him up iâ— soÌ„e stroÌ„g towâ—r the Fisâ— being very sorrowfull at this newes thereupon closed his eyes and would by no meanes open them untill the Bishops of that Kingdome m kneeling downe before the king in the fishâ—s preseâ—ce had with many prayers intreated and obtained of the King that he should be sent backe againe alive to the Seashoreâ— where hee had been takenâ— that God whose workes are incomprehensible might shew his nature and Acts least otherwise a plague should there ensue both to the King and his Subjects which their suit the King had no sooner granted but presently the â—oresaid Monster opened his eyes giving great thankes as it were to the King and especially to those Bishops After with a Chariot being prepared to carry the Fish backe againe the Fish in presence of an infinite
c. 16 Tom. 5 p â—â— â—n â—pist Paâ—â—â— l 19. in Phil. 1 1 l 23 in 1 Tim. 3 l 25 in Tit. 1 Tom. 5 p 455 456 498 499 521 522 523 De instituâ—â—ons Clericorurâ— l â— â— 4 5 6 Tom 6 p. 5 6 Haymo Halberstatensis in Phil. 1. â— Tit. 1 An 560. The 12 Councell of Toledo Can 8 Aâ—â—laâ—iâ—s Fortunatus d Ecclesiasticâ—â— Ofsiâ—â—s l 2 c 13 Anno 1050 Pecumenâ—a in Aâ—â—a Apost 5 15 2 in Phil 1 1 Tim: 3 Tit 1 fol 79 586 655 683 Anno 1070 Theophylact. Com in Act 20 17â— 28 in Phil 1 1 1 Tim: 3 Tit 1 p 517.576 600 801 Anno 1â—00 Conradus Bruno in Phil 1 1 1 Tim: 3 Tit 1 Anno 1130 Barnard De Consideratione ad Eugenium l. 2 34 Epist. 42 Sermâ— 23 25. 77. Super â—antiâ—â— De laudibuâ— Maria Homil 1 Concio in Concilio Rhemensi ad Pastâ—â—â—s Sâ—râ—â— THE THIRD SQVADRON THe third Squâ—dron is constituted of forraigne Cannonists and Popish Schoolemen wâ—iters and Councels from the Yeare of our Lord 1100 till this present as Iâ—o Carnaâ—â—nsis Dâ— â—alâ—luâ—â— pa. â—5 c â—8 59.72 1â—â— 143.144 Peter Lombard Sententiarum l 4. distinâ— 24. I. K. L mâ— Comenâ—aâ—iâ—m Phil. 1 1 Tit 1. 1 Tim: 3 Gratian the gâ—eaâ— Canâ—onist distinctio 18 21 22 23 24 25 39 50 60 61 62 63 64 65 6â— 67 68 80 93 95 Causa 2 qu. 7 Causa 24 qu 3 Hugo Caâ—dinalis in Phil â— 1 Tit 1 1 Tim: 3 Aquinas secundâ— secundae qu â—4 Ar 6 â—rg 1. Supplementum in tertiam pâ—rtem qu 37 Art 7 Durandus in l 4 Sentent Distinct 24. qu 5 6 Rational Divinorum l 2 Iohannis Parisiensiâ— de potestate Regia Papâ—li apud moâ—â—â—um de Ecclesia c 11 Catalogum Testium veritatis p 525 Carthusiâ—â— Caâ—etan and the Author of the Oâ—dinaâ—y glosse in Acts 15 c 20 17 28 Phil 1 1 1 Tim: â— Tit 1 5 7 cardinalis Arelatensiâ— apud AEneam Sylvium de Gestis Concilij Basiliensis l. 1 p 27 28 29 Alvarus Pelagius de Plainetu Ecclesia â— 1 Art 70. l 2 Art 1 to 17 Panormitam c 4 de Consuetudine Anselmus Lucensis Collectanea Can l. â— c. 87 127 Gâ—egorius Tholosamus Polycarp l 2 Tit 19 39 Iohn Thiery Glosâ—a in Gâ—ationum distinct 95 cap olim with all other Glosses and Canonists on that Text Heâ—â—iâ—us Gorichen in l 4 Sentent Distinct 24â— Astensis Summa pars 2 l 6 Tit 2 Artic 2 Angelus de claucisio Summa Angelica Ordo 1 The e councell of Lingon Anno 1404 of Paris Anno 1557 Duarenus de sacr Eccle injust l 1 c 7 Onus Ecclâ—sia c 14 to 27 Nicholas Cusaâ—â—â— de concoâ—diâ— Catholicâ— l. 2 c. 13. Alphonsus a Câ—stâ—o advers 〈◊〉 Sit â—piscopus Michael Medina de sacro hâ—m Oâ—ig et continetia 〈◊〉 â—spencaâ—â— in 1 Tim. c 3 Digressioâ—â—m in Tim â— 1 c 1 2 3â— and in Tit 1 â— â— The Rhemist â—nnotâ—tion on Acts 〈◊〉 sect 4 and in Tim 4. Phil 1. 1 â—it 1 â—â— Iâ—â—obus Fabor in 1 Tim â— 4 â— Tit 1. Sixtus Sevensi Bibl 〈◊〉 l â— Anno 32â— Azoâ—ius Mâ—â—â—lium pâ—râ— 2 l 3 c 1â—â— Buoniuâ— Anâ—uâ—ll Eccles â—om 1. p 5â—â— Iacobus de Grâ—ssâ—s dâ—sâ—â—lionum Auâ—â—carum parâ— 2 l 1 c 9 11 5 â— 9 1â— 14 16 l 3 c. 12 11 3.4 Petâ—â—s Bâ—â—sseldin â—uchyâ—idion Teâ—â—â—giae Pâ—storalis pâ—â—s 1 c 15. with other Pontisâ—â—â—ans though sundry else of them are the greatest sâ—icklers for â—â—isâ—opâ—ll Mâ—â—â—â—ne of Puâ—pose to advâ—nce the 〈◊〉 Supremâ—cy with the Parity of Bishops and Pâ—esbiters Iuâ—â— Dâ—â—mâ— â—sterly subverts and ruineâ—â— I shall close up this Squâ—drâ—n with the â—â—e Authorities of some Semiâ—â—â— Priests in Enâ—land As namely of Niâ—câ—â—las Smiâ—h in his modest and bâ—iefe discussion of certaine Assertions which are taught by Mr. Doctor â—â—lâ—ison in his Treatise of the â—cclesiasticall 〈◊〉 where thus he determines * I judge is no rashnes to affirm that since England enjoyed a Bisâ—â—pâ— to wit a Poâ—â—s â—ishopâ— to confirme the Papists and controll the Pâ—iests namely Richâ—â—d bisâ—op of Châ—lcedâ—â— created the generall â—ishop and superintendâ—nt both of Englandâ— and Scotland by Pope Vrbaus speciall Bull dated the 4th of August Anno 1625. The Coppy whereof you shall â—ind printed in Censura Propositionâ—m quaâ—undam c. per sacram facultatem Theologâ—a Parisiâ—nsis factae Paâ—isiis 1631 p 63 64 65 that more damage hath happened to the Catholikes in generall by reason of discord and frequent losse of charity then they have received benefit by the Sacrament of Conâ—irmation onely conferred on some few That all holy men have exceedingly eâ—deavoured to sâ—un such an high digâ—ity That a Bishop is in a State which presupposeth but yet gives not perfection which the State of Religion not onely presupposeth but giveth That a vow not to receive a Bishopricke is valid and sacred That â—o desiâ—e a Bishopricke even for that which iâ— best in it to wit for the good of soules according to St Thomâ—s sâ—cunda sâ—â—uâ—da que 185. Art 1 seemes to be presumptiâ—n and there are some who stick not to say and that commonly it is a moâ—tall sinne That these â—ropositions following are strange idle and absurd That it is dâ— iure divinâ— and that the law of God is that every particular Church as England is ought to have a Bishop That without a Bishop England were not a particular Church That unlesse every particular Church hath its Bishop or Bishops the whole and Vniveâ—sall Church could not be as Christ hath instituted it an Hierarchie composed of divers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot have conâ—irmation c. All which principles saith hee are worse then the concultion it selfe and demonstrated by us to â—it in that Treatise to have no foundation at all Thus this Popish Priest who proving that the Church of England may well subsist without a Popish Bishop to sway and order it grants that it may doe the like without our Protesâ—ant Prelates and that plainly resolves that it is not from any divine law or institution that the Church of England should have any Bishop at all to govern it Daniell a Iesu another Priest and a Reader of Divinity thus seconds him in his Apologie for the proceeding of the holy see Apostolike as to the government of the catholickes in England during the time of Persecution * That it is most false and of dangerous consequence that a particular Church cannot be without a Bishop That Gods law requires no more but that there be somâ— Bishops in the Church to wit so many that there bee no danger that the whole Order should suddainly be taken away by their deaths and so dispersed through the world that all Christians may bee sufficiently provided of learned and vertuous Priests If this be done the law of God is satisfied
3 Doctor Thomas Bilson after Bishop of VVinchester in his true difference betweene Christian Subjection and unchristian Rebellion Oxon 159â— p 125 126. Iohn Bridges Bishop of Oxford his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. The Petition to Queen Elizabeth p 7 20 21 Discursus de Gubernatione Ecclesiastica Anno 1584 Thomaâ— VVheteâ—sall his discourse of the corruptions now in question London 1607 Doctor Richaâ—d Field of the Church l. 5 c 27 Master Richard Hooker his Ecclesiasticall Polity â—â— 5 sect 7. â— Tho Wilson his Christian Dictionary Title Bishop Doctor Henry Airay Sermon 2. on Phil 1 1 Doctor Thomas Tailor in his Commentary upon Titus 1 v 5 7 p 121 122 Mr: Robert Parker De Politia Ecclesiastica Christi Hiorarchia apposita 1614 a learned discourse Paul Bayne his answer to Bishop Downâ—ham his consecration Sermon Doctor William Ames in his Bellarminus enervatus Printed by License at Oxford Anno 1629. Tom 2 l 3 c 3 4â—Iamss Peregrin his Letters Patents of the Presbitery Anno 1632. Doctor Iohn Bastwicke his Flagollum Pontificis Episcoporum Laâ—ialum his Apologeticus with above 40 Anonymous Tâ—eatises that I have seene All these unamiously testifie that Bishops and Presbiters by Gods law and divine institution are all one equall and the same That the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers is only of humane and canonicall institution long afteâ— the Apostles most of them coÌ„demning it as Anti-christian unlawfull Diabolical pernicious to Religion the Church of God the cause of all the tyranny schismes corruptions disorders errors abuses that now infest the Church or hinder the power the purity of Religion and progresse of the Gospell To these I might accumulate the Statute of 25 H. 8 c 19 20 21 26 H 8. c 1 27 Hâ— 8 c 15 31 H. 8 c 9.10 37 H 8 c 17 1 Ed. 6 c 21 2 Phil Marie c 8 1 Eliz c. 1 5 Eliz. c 1 8 Eliz. c. 1. The Patents of 31 H 8 pars 4. to enable Bishops to consecrate Churches Chappels and Church-yards with the Kings License first obtained of 36 H. 8 pars 13. to Robert Holgaâ—e Arch-Bishop of Yorke to enable and authorize him to keep a Metropolicall visitation the Patents for the creation of the Bishoâ—rickâ— of Oxford Glocester Bristol Peterâ—â—rougâ— and VVestminster An. 34 35 H â— the Patents of Miles Goverdake Bishop of Exeter Iohn Povet once Bishop of VVinchester and Iohn Story Bishop of Rochester 5 E. 6 pars Prima and of all the other Bishops made in his Raigne by vertue of the Statute of 1 E. 6 c 2. wiih all the High-Commission Patents grounded on 1 Eliz c. 1. all which expresly resolves That all manner of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction wherby Bishops are extinguished from and elivated above ordinary Ministers is wholy vested in and for ever inseperably united and annexed to the imperiall Crowne of this Realme that our Arch-Bishops Bishops Arch-Deaconsâ— and other â—cclesiâ—sticall Persons have no manner of jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall but only by under and from the Kings Majesty that they ought to have the jurisdiction delegated and devided to theÌ„ by speciall Letters Patents and Commissions under the Kings great Seale to execute the same not in their owne names and right but only Nominâ— vice Authoritate nostris Regijs as King Edwards Patents run in the Kings owne name right and Authority as his Officers and subsâ—itutes making out all their Proces Citations Excommunications Commissions oâ— Administration Probate of wills and writs of Iurâ— Patronâ—â—us c in the Kings name only and under his Seale of Armes not their owne under paine of imprisonment and a premunire for the neglect and wilfull contempt whereof all our Bishops and their Officers have encurred severall Premunires to the forfiture of all their temporalities goods estates and liberties to his Majesty who may much enrich his Exchequer thereby All which Acts and Patents judicially condemne and overturn our Bishops pretended superiority over their fellow Brethren by a divine right the very claime whereof alone makes them all liable to a Premunire and meer perjur'd persons both to God and the King beeing directly contrary to the very oath of Supremacy prescribed by 1 Eliz c 1 which every Bishop oft times takes and every graduate and Clergie man whatsoever who must either abjure this pretended Ius Divinum with which they would support the Hierarchie or prove perjur'd disloyall Subjects to their Soveraigne Having thus presented you with this large Catalogue of Authorities proving the parity â—quality and identity of Bishops and Presbiters by divine right and institution I shall now challenge all our great swelling â—relates and their sâ—attereâ—s joyntly and severally â—sâ—ecially the two Arch-Bishops who have made so many throsonicall braggâ—s of the proofe of their divine Title in open Court befoâ—e thousands of people to produce a contrary Catalogue of Authâ—rities of thesâ— severall kinds evidenâ—ing theiâ— divine pretended right supeâ—ioâ—ity and jurisdiction over other Minisâ—eâ—s â—f they are able to do it and to give a satisfactory answer to this Treatise I shall suâ—sâ—ibâ— to their opinion and recant what I have written But if they cannot performe â—t as I am certaine they are altogether unable then let them retract their former vaine glorious vauntsâ— and abjure their pretended Ius Divinum by subscribing to that truth which they are unable to contradict and laying downe their Bishoprickes at least their Rochestsâ— as they have oft-times solemnly protested they would doe If they can or will doe neither they must give all the world leave to passe this censure on them That they have neither that learning truth or honesty in them as hitherto they would make the world beleeve they hadâ— And that they may have no starting hole to evade I shall in as few words as may be answer what ever they can Object for themselves out of any undoubted Aâ—tiquity which is but thisâ— That Acceâ—s was branâ—ed for an Hereticke by Epiphaâ—iâ—s and Auguâ—tine for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall one to the other by divine instiâ—ution This is all that either the (o) Papists or (p) our Prelates do or can alleage for their Hierarchie out of the Fathers or Antiquity and this in truth is a good as nothing For first this opinion of Aerius was never condemned as Hereticall by any Counsell or Father whatsoever but only by Epiphanius who alone is unsufficient to brand or make any man an Hereticke Saint Augustine indeed if the Booke be his cites this opinion of his out of Epiphanius in his Book de haeresibus c 53 yet he brands it not as an Heresie but stiles it Proprium Dogma in expresse termes to wit his proper assertion and his owne too taxing him only of Heresie forâ—siding with the Arrians in their branded heresie (q) Isiodor Hispalensis Gratian reciting the Heresie of Arrius makes no mention a all either of this as an Heresie or error
in him passing it over in silence and expresly averrâ—ing it theÌ„selves as a truth Wherefore no ancient Counsell or Author whatsoever but Epiphanius branding it either for an heresie or Error I see not well how it should be so esteemed Secondly this hath been the constant received Doctrine both of Christ and his Apostles of all the Fathers and learned Orthodoxe writers in all ages as the precedent Catalogue witnesseth therefore no Heresie or Error as Epiphanius and some few of late out of him alone have rashly deemed it Thirdly it cannot properly be called an Heresie because the superiority of Bishops over other Ministers by a dâ—vine institution as no fundamentall point of faith neither hath it any foundation at all in Scripture as I have elsewhere manifested Therefoâ—e it is most absurd to call it an heresie Fourthly Epiphaâ—ius there condemnes Aerius as much for reprehending and censuring Prayer for the dead as for affirming Bishops and Presbiters to bee equall But this our Prelates must confesse unlesse they renounce this Doctrine of our Church was no Error or Heresie in Aerius but rather in Epiphanius why not therefore the other Fifthly Epiphanius himselfe doth not condeâ—ne Aâ—rius his opinion in this particular for an Hereticko but onely as a fond opinion as his words Eâ— quod tota res stuâ—titiae plena est apud prudentes manifestum est Sixthly St. Hieromâ— Naziaâ—zen Basill Sedulius Ambrose Chrisostome and Augustine taught the same Doctrine that Aerius did at or about the same time but they were never taxed of Heresie or Error for it either then or since why then should Aâ—rius only be blamed who argues just as Hierome doth producing the same Scâ—ipture to prove his assertion as Hieromâ— hath done in his Epistle to Evagrius on Tit. 1. Seventhly Epiphanius his refutations of Aerius his Arguments and opinion is very ridiculous false and absurd For first he saith that Presbiters then had not the power of ordination neither did they use to lay on hands in the election and Ordination of Ministers which is a meere falshood as Hierom in Soph. c. â— with the â—th Counsell of Carthage witnes and I have elsewhere manifested at large Secondly he saith that Presbiters had no voice in the Election of Bishops and Ministers which is (s) contrary to all Antiquities extant and a most palpable untruth Thirdly he saith that there were then more Bishops then Presbiters and men sufficient worthy enough to be made Bishops but noâ— Presbyters and therfore the Apostle writing to the Philippians and others makes mention only of Bishops not of Presbyters because they had then Bishops but not Presbyters A miserable ridiculous answer which subverts that he contends for and constitutes Bishops without any Ministers under their command or jurisdictionâ— whence it will necessarily follow That seeing the Apostles instituted Bishops without Ministers under them aâ—d more Bishops then Presbiters there ought now to bee no Presbiters subject to Bishops but Bishops to be plâ—ced in every churchâ— without any Ministers under â—hem but Deacons only and more Biâ—hops then Ministers which I presume the Lordly Prelates will not grant for this would over-turne not only their Lordships but their â—iocesâ—e and Episcopalities Fourthly he saith that the Apoâ—â—les first constituted Bishops onely in the Church withâ—ut Elders and then they afterwards elected Elders as they fâ—und them worthy which is contrary to Stâ— t Ierome and â—ll antiquity averring that Elders were first ordained in euery Church 〈◊〉 14â— 23 Tit. 1 5 and that they afterward elected a Bishop out of themselves Fifthly he saith that the Apostles used to write to the Bishops of one Church in the plurall number when there was but one Bishop there which is very improbâ—ble yea contrary of all other expositors on â—hil â— 1. Tit. 1 5 7 Act. 20 17 2â— Sixthly he peremptorily determines Timothy to be a Bishop which I have elsewhere proved false and fâ—om this false ground would prove Bishops and Presbiters distinct Seventhly he interprets an Elder in the 1 Tim. 5.1 to be a Presbiter which most Fathers else expound only to be an ancient man Eightly he would prove Timothy a Bishop and Bishops to be Superior too and distinct from Presbiters because Paul exhorts him not to rebuke an Elder but to exhort him as a Father and not to receive an accusation against an Elder but under two or three witnesses which are grosse inconsequence as I have else where manifested so that Epiphanius whilst he goes about to prove Aerius his assertion still of folly steps into many Errors follies and absurdities himselfe as Bellarmine is inforced to confesse though desirous to make the best of it In a word then as all the forecited Authors in generall â—o in speciall Chemnitius examen Concilij Tridentini part 4. de Ordinis â—acramento Danaus in Augustium de haresibus c. 53 Theodorus Bibliander in Chronagr Bucanus lâ—corum com c 32 Magdeburgenses cent â— c. 5. de haresibus Beza de diversis ministorum gradibus c 22. Bersomus Bucerus de Gubernationâ— Ecclesia p 2â—â— to 29â— Bishop Ioâ—â—ll defence of the Apologie part 2 c. 9. divis 1. p 196 202. Doctor Humphry confâ—tat Puritanâ— Papismi ad Rat 3 p 261.262 Doctor VVâ—itakeâ— câ—ntr Duraum l 6. sect â—â— ad ratio 10 Campiani Resp. Contr. lib. â— qu. 5. c. 7. Doctor Fulke and Mr. Cartwright confutation of the Remish Testament Phil. 1.1 Bishop Bridges in his defence of the Princes Supremacy p. 359. Doctor VVillâ—t Synopsis Papismi contr. 8. qu. 3. part 2. Dr. Reynolds in his Letter to Sir Francis Knolls and to Michael Medina a Papistâ—de Sacr. hom Orig. l. 1â— c. 5. Doctor Armes in his Bellarminnus enarvatus Tom. 2. l 3 c 4. to omit others do all joyntly acquit Aâ—â—ius both â—roÌ„ the guilt of Heresie or Error in thiâ— very point and taxe Epiphanius for censuring him without the judgement of a Synod or of the Church condemning his answers to Aerius his reasons as notoriously absurd impertinent yea as foolish Childisâ— worthy to be hissed and derided I shall therfore conclude as doth our learned w Whittaker in this case verily if to condemne prayers for the dead and to equâ—ll Presbitersâ— with Bishops be hereticall Nihil Catholicum esse potest Nothing can be Catholicke so farre as it from being either an Heresie or Error as oâ—r absurd Prelates and their Sycophants Pretend If they object the Authority of x Ignatius that he advanceth Bishops above Presbyters commanding them to obey the Bishops as the Apostles obeyed Christ and willing the people to be subject to their Bishops as to God and Christ and to their Elders as to Christs Apostlâ—s therfore in his daies Bishops were Superior to Presbiters To this I answer that these Epistles of Ignatius are false and spurious as many y of our learned men have proved at large therefore of no Authority Secondly it is